It looks as though Facebook this time will indeed transition its users to switch to the Timeline service, whether or not the users like it or not. As a mere new format, Timeline doesn't really reveal anything that was previously inaccessible. Nevertheless, it greatly facilitates the access of information from the past that used to be burdensome to retrieve. Instead of continuously hitting "Older Posts" to go to the past, users now can simply click on the year to instantly jump to the past. In computer science lingo, retrieval of information just went from O(n) to O(1) efficiency. While efficiency is greatly appreciated in computer algorithms, is it necessary good in the case of Facebook? It really depends.
Numerous Facebook users have deactivated their accounts since the inception of the Timeline program. Many remarks have come in that Timeline is "creepy" and "makes stalking easy." Indeed, by making past information much more accessible, Timeline does it make it easy for an user to look into the digital history of others. In anticipation of the changes, Facebook gives users "seven days to clean up their profiles before Timeline gets automatically activated." During this time, users get a preview of Timeline to make the necessary privacy settings before the new page goes public. But that still may be too much hassle for those to go through their scrapbook and change privacy settings, or totally remove, items from the past that they don't want others to see presently.
Facebook has grown with its expansion into complexity, each time facing massive opposition. For those preferring simplicity, Facebook has grown out of touch and function. LinkedIn has become the stream for professional information and contacts. Twitter has become more effective at quickly digesting news and developments, without all of the comments and "likes." What's Facebook good for then? Currently on my News Feed, there are shared pictures, various comments and status updates about people's evenings, among others. Indeed, these seemingly random pieces of floating information are what holds Facebook together. Yet that can be quite useful. These aren't exactly the information one will try to actively search for. Instead, the information comes to them, some useful, most of them not. Facebook also still is the best tool to keep in contact with the average friend. One learns about other's activities effortlessly and can easily communicate, without having to look up email addresses.
Back to Timeline though, it seem as though this privacy issue has concerned many users. However, there should be no concern if one is indifferent about past information being exposed presently. People continuously share too much pieces of information, and don't want it to be easily accessible by all. Ironically, unbridled sharing is what makes Facebook useful. The more information people post, the more useful Facebook becomes for everyone who views that information. But the more information an individual puts out, the bigger chance that the information eventually will get to those unintended. Timeline actually serves as an apt reminder that public digital information is indeed public. Even had Timeline been implemented, the information posted today will still be accessible in the future.
Facebook is still useful. From textbook transactions, campus events, to friends reconnecting, Facebook excels in the expediency and ease with which information spreads. Timeline's quick access helps those looking for useful information from the past. For those concerned about excess personal information going public and the easy access of such from others, don't feed that much information into the system. Don't post that embarrassing status or picture; there is a reason why email or private messaging exists. Instead, use Facebook to share information that doesn't mind being easily accessible forever, or simply use it for passive intake of information. Facebook is a digital archive with information that will stay. The sooner people realize that, the better it can serve all users in what it does best.
Sources:
